Re: another one missed out on? : Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:32 am  

No other SL clubs have to run a RU side? The latest set of accounts shows the Rhinos lending the RU side 1.7m to prop it up. This situation will not improve now they have fallen out of the lucrative top tier and still wish to run a full time squad.

Logically - given the economic situation and the lack of demand for new business premises - Caddick may not be quite so flush as he was - hence the 1.7m coming from the Rhinos rather than himself.

There is still the image writes issue to sort out with HMRC and given the Rhinos have put aside >500k one assumes this must be a serious issue with potentially serious consequences

Finally next season the revenue from games with be significantly lower due to the issues with the southstand.

This doesn't print a pretty picture but it is the reality - it is no surprise the Rhinos are re-signing a host of aged players - most likely on reduced contracts. It would not be beyond the realms of possibility for the Rhinos to 400-500k under the salary cap for next season.

Re: another one missed out on? : Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:39 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The latest set of accounts shows the Rhinos lending the RU side 1.7m to prop it up.

Is that true?!

Re: another one missed out on? : Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:07 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

No other SL clubs have to run a RU side? The latest set of accounts shows the Rhinos lending the RU side 1.7m to prop it up. This situation will not improve now they have fallen out of the lucrative top tier and still wish to run a full time squad.

Logically - given the economic situation and the lack of demand for new business premises - Caddick may not be quite so flush as he was - hence the 1.7m coming from the Rhinos rather than himself.

There is still the image writes issue to sort out with HMRC and given the Rhinos have put aside >500k one assumes this must be a serious issue with potentially serious consequences

Finally next season the revenue from games with be significantly lower due to the issues with the southstand.

This doesn't print a pretty picture but it is the reality - it is no surprise the Rhinos are re-signing a host of aged players - most likely on reduced contracts. It would not be beyond the realms of possibility for the Rhinos to 400-500k under the salary cap for next season.

At last, a dose of reality.

Re: the RU loan. Who knows, it might have have been tax efficient to loan out the funds that year. It was Y/E 2010 remember. Some may have been repaid. If not, with a new stand to pay for, now would certainly be a good time to call it in.

The accounts are very sophisticate with loads of inter company charges and transaction so it's not as simple as us loaning them £1.7 million anyway but I agree that belts might have to be tightened when it comes to player salaries and I can understand and live with that.

We might not be champions for a year or two but we won't have to sell Headingley to tescos either.

Re: another one missed out on? : Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:15 am  

Adeybull wrote:

You really are sounding like the new Bradford.

Is it down to Caddìck not being a sugar daddy in the Moran/Davy/Lenaghan mould?

Do you have players whose image rights etc are being paid by "unconnected" third parties, as people allege regarding certain clubs? If not, is that part of the reason why you seem to be following Bradford down the road of "spending salary cap but squad worse than certain other clubs" route?

Not trying to take the pìss here - serious questions. Some clubs seem to have bottomless pockets - how is a matter of conjecture, but I have my own views.
I have always seen Leeds (under Darth, anyway) as a club that is run very professionally indeed, and always within its means.

In the early part of the last decade, Leeds had a predominantly young team full of local lads who were presumably being paid not a great deal on their first pro contracts. That's an ideal situation in a salary capped sport, as it leaves you with plenty of scope to fill your squad with experienced older heads who can guide these youngsters around.

As these players have got older, more successful and more experienced the core of the squad will now be commanding top dollar. Many of them are current or recent internationals and will be paid as such. That leaves you much less room under the cap to supplement these players and fill the rest of your squad.

Add in some questionable overseas recruitment decisions (Buderus - questionable on need rather than quality, Eastwood - questionable on character, not ability) and there has been a decline in the depth and quality of the squad which has been reflected in performances.

Re: another one missed out on? : Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:27 am  

G1 wrote:

At last, a dose of reality.

Re: the RU loan. Who knows, it might have have been tax efficient to loan out the funds that year. It was Y/E 2010 remember. Some may have been repaid. If not, with a new stand to pay for, now would certainly be a good time to call it in.

The accounts are very sophisticate with loads of inter company charges and transaction so it's not as simple as us loaning them £1.7 million anyway but I agree that belts might have to be tightened when it comes to player salaries and I can understand and live with that.

We might not be champions for a year or two but we won't have to sell Headingley to tescos either.

The last sentence is the most telling of all - think about your own situation, if you want a new kitchen then most likely you are eating in rather than regular trips to Anthonys!!

I for one wish the club would be a but more trusting of the fans and give us a vision of how they see the future and the hurdles they will have to jump to get there.

Re: another one missed out on? : Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:34 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The last sentence is the most telling of all - think about your own situation, if you want a new kitchen then most likely you are eating in rather than regular trips to Anthonys!!

I for one wish the club would be a but more trusting of the fans and give us a vision of how they see the future and the hurdles they will have to jump to get there.

I agree David but the club's PR isn't aimed at the likes of you and I who can see clearly straigh through it and understand what is going on.

It's aimed at the masses who will swallow it and that's fine.

Re: another one missed out on? : Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:34 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I for one wish the club would be a but more trusting of the fans and give us a vision of how they see the future and the hurdles they will have to jump to get there.

In what other line of business would you tell your current and prospective customers that the quality of your product is likely to decline in the short-term but you'd like them to keep buying it anyway?

Leeds Rugby Limited is a business first and foremost, a sports club second. Getting those the wrong way round even for a short period of time can have disastrous consequences.

Re: another one missed out on? : Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:12 pm  

What is the turnover of Leeds RL? Figures around £11,000,000 have been quoted in the past. The salary cap is still set at £1,650,000 isn't it.

Why should Leeds (with an average home attendance still in excess of 15,000) choose to skimp on the playing squad and if they are/do will it have a negative impact on future income and prospects?

Re: another one missed out on? : Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:22 pm  

tvoc wrote:

What is the turnover of Leeds RL? Figures around £11,000,000 have been quoted in the past. The salary cap is still set at £1,650,000 isn't it.

Why should Leeds (with an average home attendance still in excess of 15,000) choose to skimp on the playing squad and if they are/do will it have a negative impact on future income and prospects?

thought that myself. we really should be spending the full cap

Re: another one missed out on? : Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:56 pm  

Were I someone who may or may not buy a season ticket, the signing up of a decent squad would be a tipping point for me, and would give me optimism. £500k saved through not signing up top players, would easily be lost by 2,500 not buying season tickets, and that's not taking walk up customers and merchandise sales into account.

Doesn't seem sound logic to me